This invention relates to methods of operation of computer systems, and more particularly to a method and system for managing the licensing of software executed on computer systems.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,937,863, issued to Robert, Chase and Schafer and assigned to Digital Equipment Corporation, the assignee of this invention, a Software Licensing Management System is disclosed in which usage of licensed software may be monitored in a computer system to determine if a use is within the scope of a license. The system maintains a database of licenses for software products, and stores a unit value indicating the number of licensing units for each product. When a user wishes to use a licensed product, a message is sent to the central license management facility requesting a license grant. In response to this message, the facility accesses the database to see if a license exits for this product, and, if so, whether units may be allocated to the user, depending upon the user's characteristics, such as the configuration of the platform (CPU) which will execute the software product. If the license management facility determines that a license can be granted, it sends a message to the user giving permission to proceed with activation of the product. If not, the message denies permission.
While the concepts disclosed in the U.S. Pat. No. 4,937,863 are widely applicable, and indeed are employed in the present invention, there are additional functions and alternatives that are needed in some applications. For example, the license management system should allow for simultaneous use of a wide variety of different licensing alternatives, instead of being rigidly structured to permit only one or only a few. When negotiating licenses with users, vendors should have available a wide variety of terms and conditions, even though a given vendor may decide to narrow the selection down to a small number. For example, a software product may be licensed to a single individual for use on a single CPU, or to an organization for use by anyone on a network, or for use by any users at terminals in a cluster, or only for calls from another specific licensed product, or any of a large number of other alternatives. A vendor may have a large number of products, some sold under one type of license and some under others, or a product may be a composite of a number of features from one or more vendors having different license policies and prices; it would be preferable to use the same license management system for all such products.
Distributed computing systems present additional licensing issues. A distributed system includes a number of processor nodes tied together in a network of servers and clients. Each node is a processor which may execute programs locally, and may also execute programs or features (subparts of programs) via the network. A program executing on one node may make remote procedure calls to procedures or programs on other nodes. In this case, some provision need to be made for defining a license permitting a program to be executed in a distributed manner rather than separately on a single CPU, short of granting a license for execution on all nodes of a network.
In a large organization such as a company or government agency having various departments and divisions, geographically dispersed, a software license policy is difficult to administer and enforce, and also likely to be more costly, if individual licenses are negotiated, granted and administered by the units of the organization. A preferred arrangement would be to obtain a single license from the software producer, and then split this license into locally-administered parts by delegation. The delays caused by network communication can thus be minimized, as well as budgetary constraints imposed on the divisions or departments. Aside from this issue of delegation, the license management facility may best be operated on a network, where the licensing of products run on all nodes of the network may be centrally administered. A network is not necessary for use of the features of the invention however, since the license management can be implemented on a single platform.
Software products are increasingly fragmented into specific functions, and separate distribution of the functions can be unduly expensive. For example, a spreadsheet program may have separate modules for advanced color graphics, for accessing a database, for printing or displaying an expanded list of fonts, etc. Customers of the basic spreadsheet product may want some, none or all of these added features. Yet, it would be advantageous to distribute the entire combination as one package, then allow the customer to license the features separately, in various combinations, or under differing terms. The customer may have an entire department of the company needing to use the spreadsheet every day, but only a few people who need to use the graphics a few days a month. It is advantageous, therefore, to provide alternatives for varied licensing of parts or features of software packages, rather than a fixed policy for the whole package.
Another example of distribution of products in their entirety, but licensing in parts, would be that of delivering CD ROMs to a customer containing all of the software that is available for a system, then licensing only those parts the customer needs or wishes to pay fees for rights to use. Of course, the product need not be merely applications programs, operating systems, or traditional executable code, but instead could also include static objects such as printer fonts, for example, or graphics images, or even music or other sound effects.
As will be explained below, calling and caller authorizations are provided in the system according to one feature of the invention, in order to provide technological support for a number of business practices and solve technical problems which require the use of what is called "transitive licensing." By "transitive licensing" is meant that the right to use one product or feature implies a right to use one or more other products or features. Transitive licenses are similar to group licenses in that both types of license consist of a single instrument providing rights of use for a plurality of products. However, transitive licenses differ from group licenses in that they restrict the granted rights by specifying that the licensed products can only be used together and by further specifying one or more permitted inter-product calling/caller relationships. Some examples may help to clarify the use and nature of a transitive license: the examples to be explained are (1) two products sold together, (2) a give-away that results from narrow choices of licensing alternatives, (3) a client licensing method in a client/server environment, (4) impact of modular design, and (5) the impact of distributed design.
A software vendor might have two products for sale: the first a mail system, and the second a LEXIS.TM.-like content-based text retrieval system. Each of these products might be valued at $500 if purchased separately. Some customers would be satisfied by purchasing the rights to use only one of these products. Others might find that they can justify use of both. In order to increase the likelihood that customers will, in fact, purchase both products, it would not be surprising if the software vendor offered his potential customers a volume discount, offering the two products for a combined price of $800. The customers who took advantage of this combined offer would find that they had received two products, each of which could be exploited to its fullest capabilities independently from the other. Thus, these customers would be able to use the content based retrieval system to store and retrieve non-mail documents. However, from time to time, the vendor may discover that particularly heavy users of mail wish to be able to use the content based retrieval system only to augment the filing capabilities provided by the standard mail offering. It is likely that many of these potential customers would feel that $800 is simply too much to pay for an extended mail capability. The vendor might then consider offering these customers a license that grants mail users the right to use the content-based retrieval system only when they are using mail and prohibits the use of content based retrieval with any other application that might be available on the customers system. This type of license is referred to below a "transitive license," and it might sell for $600.
Another example is a relational database product (such as that referred to as Rdb.TM.) designed for use on a particular operating system, e.g., VMS. This relational database product has two components: (1) A user interface used in developing new databases, and (2) a "run-time" system which supports the use of previously developed databases. The developers of the database product might spend quite a bit of effort trying to get other products made by the vendor of the database product to use it as a database instead of having those other products build their own product-specific databases. Unfortunately, the other product designers may complain that the cost of a run-time license for the database product, when added to the cost of licenses for their products, would inevitably make their products uncompetitive. Thus, some mechanism would be needed that would allow one or another of the vendor's products to use the run-time system for the relational database product in a "private" manner while not giving unlicensed access to products of other vendors. No such mechanism existed, prior to this invention; thus, the vendor might be forced to sell the right to use its run-time system for the database product with its proprietary operating system license. Clearly, this combined license would make is possible for the vendor's products to use its database product without increasing their prices; however, it also would make it possible for any customers and third-parties to use the database product without paying additional license fees. However, had the system of the invention been available, the vendor could have granted transitive licenses for the run-time component of its database product to all the vendor's products. Essentially, these licenses would have said that the database run-time could be used without an additional license fee if and only if it was used in conjunction with some other of the vendor's products. Any customer wishing to build a new relational database application or use a third-party application that relied on the vendor's database product would have had to pay the vendor for its database run-time license.
A proposed client/server licensing method provides yet another example of a problem which could be solved by transitive licensing. Typically, a client is only used by one user at a time, while a server can support an arbitrary number of clients depending on the level of client activity and the capacity of the machine which is supporting the server. While traditionally, server/client applications have been licensed according to the number of clients that a server could potentially support, this may not be the most appropriate method for licensing when the alternatives afforded by the invention are considered. The business model for the proposed client/server method requires that each client be individually licensed and no explicit licensing of servers is required to support properly licensed clients. Such a licensing scheme makes it possible to charge customers only for the specific number of clients they purchase. Additionally, it means that a single client can make use of more than one server without increasing the total cost of the system. The solution to this transitive licensing problem would be to provide a mechanism that would allow the clients to obtain license unit allocations and then pass a "proof" of that allocation to any servers they may wish to use. Servers would then support any clients whose proofs could be verified to be valid. On the other hand, if a client that had not received a proof of allocation attempted to use a server, the server would obtain a license allocation for that client session prior to performing any services. Such a solution has not been heretofore available.
As the complexity and size of the software systems provided to customers increases, it is found that the actual solution provided to customers is no longer a single product. Rather, customers are more often now offered solutions which are built up by integrating an increasing number of components or products, each of which can often stand alone or can be part of a large number of other solutions. In fact, a product strategy may rely almost exclusively on the vendor's engineering and selling a broad range of specialized components that can only be fully exploited when combined together with other components into a larger system. Such components include the relational database runtime system mentioned above, mail transport mechanisms, hyperinformation databases, document format conversion services, time services, etc. Because these components are not sold on their own merits, but rather on their ability to contribute to some larger system, it is unlikely that any one customer will be receiving the full abstract economic value of any one of the components once integrated into a system. Similarly, it can be observed that the value of any component once integrated into a larger system varies greatly from system to system. Thus, it may be found that a mail transport mechanism contributes a large part of a system whose primary focus is mail, however, it will contribute proportionally less of the value of a system that provides a broader office automation capability. As a result of these observations, the job of the business analyst who is attempting to find the "correct" market price for each component standing on its own, is more complex. In reality, the price or value of the component can only be determined when considering the contribution of that component to the full system or solution in which it is integrated. Attempting to sell the components at prices based on their abstract, independent values will simply result in overpriced systems.
Transitive license styles are particularly suited to dealing with pricing of modular components, since component prices can be clearly defined in relation to the other components or systems which they support. Thus, a vendor can charge a price of $100 for the right to use a mail transport system in conjunction with one product, yet charge $200 for the use of the same mail transport system when used by another product.
In addition to the "business" reasons for wanting to support transitive licensing, there is also a very good technical reason that arises from the growing tendency of developers to build "distributed products" as well as the drive toward application designs that exploit either tightly or loosely coupled multiprocessor systems; the availability and growing use of remote procedure calls has contributed to this tendency. This technical problem can be seen to arise when considering a product which has a number of components, each of which may run in a different process space and potentially on a different computer system. Thus, there might be a mail system whose user interface runs on one machine, its "file cabinet" is supported by a second machine and its mail transport system runs on yet a third machine. The simple question which arises is: "Which of the three components should check for licenses?" Clearly it must be ensured that no single component can be used if a valid license is not present. Thus, the answer to the question will probably be that all three components should check for licenses. However, the question is then presented: " Where are the licenses to be located?". This can become more complex.
Increasingly, the distributed systems being built are being designed so that it is difficult to predict on which precise machine any particular component will run. Ideally, networks are supposed to optimize the placement of functions automatically so that the machine with the most available resource is always the one that services any particular request. This dynamic method of configuring the distribution of function servers on the network makes it very difficult for a system or network manager to predict which machines will run any particular function and thus very difficult for him to decide on which machines software licenses should be loaded.
Even if a system manager could predict which machines would be running the various application components and thus where the license units should be loaded, the situation would still be less than ideal. The problem arises from the fact that each of the components of the application would be independently making requests for license unit allocations. This behavior will result in a difficult problem for anyone trying to decide how many license units are required to support any one product. Given the mail example, the problem wouldn't exist if it were assumed that all three components (i.e., user interface, file cabinet, and transport system) were required by the design of the mail system to be in use simultaneously. If this were the case, it could be simply assumed that supporting a single activation of the mail system would require three units. However, in a real mail system, it will be inevitably discovered that many users will only be using just the user-interface and file-cabinet components of the system at one time. Thus, there will be some unused units available which could be used to authorize additional users. This situation might not be what is desired by the software vendor.
The problem of providing license support to multi-component products which are dynamically configured could be solved by viewing each of the product components as a distinct licensable product and by treating the problem as one of transitive licensing, but a mechanism for accomplishing this has not been available. Essentially, a single license document would be created that stated that if any one of the components had successfully obtained a license to run, it could use this grant to give it the right to exploit the other components. Thus, in the example above, the user might start the mail system by invoking its user interface. This user interface code would then query the license management facility for a license allocation and once it has received that allocation, it would pass a proof of allocation to the other mail components that it uses. Each of the other components would request that the license management system validate that the "proof" is valid prior to performing any service; however, none of the other components would actually require specific allocations to be made to them. In this way, the complexity of licensing and managing networks of distributed applications can be significantly reduced.